RichardG

Sounds good. Thanks.

@ DrRocket I understand your point. While I did not see dimensions as something out of superman's "bizzarro" world, your explanation on "degree of freedom" does make a lot of sense. I thought that if a 2d space could exist within a 3d space, then dimensions could exist "inside" one another. Your explanation well clarifies that point. A 2d space could never be fully defined as existing in a 3d space without actually using a 3rd coordinate to define where in the 3d space the "plane" would exist. @ Schrödinger & elfmotat Got it. The number assignment to time as a dimension is simply arbitrary. Thanks for the many replies. I know I have more to study to gain a deeper understanding. Does anyone have any recommendations for a good book to study as an introduction to theoretical physics? I realize that a few prerequisites may be in order (be kind, as I hold 2 jobs and have little free time to study, but I want to better understand this subject). Thanks, Richard

@ michel123456 I understand what you are saying, and am actually not too confused about your idea at all. It is simply a different way of viewing the subject of time as the "underlying dimension" in which all other dimensions exist. @ swansont I get it, perhaps I am not strictly referring to string theory, and I do apologize for the mis-labeling of this topic. My main point of thought is that time seems to be unplaceable in terms of spacial dimensions as it is (although related) not the same idea as spacial dimensions. The point which I am sort of getting at is this: Why would the strings need to vibrate in 10 dimensional hyperspace? We have seen in our 3 dimensional universe that the wavelength of energy determines its properties, and if energy and matter are interchangeable, why could the vibration of subatomic particles not determine the properties of that piece of matter? (certain wavelength makes a proton, another wavelength makes an electron etc [crude example, I know, but it communicates the point]). As you said, physically speaking, all we can observe and experience are the 3 basic spacial dimensions, so couldn't the solution exist simply within those dimensions? I originally brought up my question of time as I wanted to further understand that before delving further into this matter. I realize that with all these things being theoretical, a clear, definitive answer is not likely/possible. I just wanted to get others' perspectives on the subject. Thanks again, Richard

Hello all, To start let me say that I have no formal training in theoretical physics, I am simply fascinated by the subject and it has become somewhat of an obsession of thought. I have a general understanding of what string theory is and I do grasp the concept of 10 (or more) dimensions. Now for my question: In my understanding of string theory, the 4th dimension is postulated to be time (correct me if I am wrong). However consider this: A "creature" living in 1 dimensional space would only be able to move "left" and "right" if you will. However in the course of his travels, he could consider that he is now further left or further right than he once was. This 1D creature would therefore have the concept of time, making it (from his viewpoint) the 2nd dimension. The same could be said of a creature living in 2 dimensional space, him considering that the 3rd dimension was not depth, but actually time. And so it seems to me that time (although observable) is a bit of an arbitrary as to its dimensional placement. There could be another dimension of space itself that would indeed be the 4th dimension (and it could be postulated to continue on in an infinite number of spacial dimensions). Any clarification of this would be appreciated. Thanks in advance, Richard.